Jump to content

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998


Recommended Posts


By Bob Carter

(Filed: 09/04/2006)


For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).


Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.


In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.


Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?


Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.


The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported.


Marketed under the imprimatur of the IPCC, the bladder-trembling and now infamous hockey-stick diagram that shows accelerating warming during the 20th century - a statistical construct by scientist Michael Mann and co-workers from mostly tree ring records - has been a seminal image of the climate scaremongering campaign. Thanks to the work of a Canadian statistician, Stephen McIntyre, and others, this graph is now known to be deeply flawed.


There are other reasons, too, why the public hears so little in detail from those scientists who approach climate change issues rationally, the so-called climate sceptics. Most are to do with intimidation against speaking out, which operates intensely on several parallel fronts.


First, most government scientists are gagged from making public comment on contentious issues, their employing organisations instead making use of public relations experts to craft carefully tailored, frisbee-science press releases. Second, scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research. Third, members of the Establishment have spoken declamatory words on the issue, and the kingdom's subjects are expected to listen.


On the alarmist campaign trail, the UK's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, is thus reported as saying that global warming is so bad that Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century. Warming devotee and former Chairman of Shell, Lord [Ron] Oxburgh, reportedly agrees with another rash statement of King's, that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. And goodly Archbishop Rowan Williams, who self-evidently understands little about the science, has warned of "millions, billions" of deaths as a result of global warming and threatened Mr Blair with the wrath of the climate God unless he acts. By betraying the public's trust in their positions of influence, so do the great and good become the small and silly.


Two simple graphs provide needed context, and exemplify the dynamic, fluctuating nature of climate change. The first is a temperature curve for the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. The second graph shows the average global temperature over the last eight years, which has proved to be a period of stasis.


The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming.


The British Government urgently needs to recast the sources from which it draws its climate advice. The shrill alarmism of its public advisers, and the often eco-fundamentalist policy initiatives that bubble up from the depths of the Civil Service, have all long since been detached from science reality. Intern-ationally, the IPCC is a deeply flawed organisation, as acknowledged in a recent House of Lords report, and the Kyoto Protocol has proved a costly flop. Clearly, the wrong horses have been backed.


As mooted recently by Tony Blair, perhaps the time has come for Britain to join instead the new Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6), whose six member countries are committed to the development of new technologies to improve environmental outcomes. There, at least, some real solutions are likely to emerge for improving energy efficiency and reducing pollution.


Informal discussions have already begun about a new AP6 audit body, designed to vet rigorously the science advice that the Partnership receives, including from the IPCC. Can Britain afford not to be there?


• Prof Bob Carter is a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both "sides" use global warming to force their agenda.


How can anyone be so flippant about this topic -- "oh, those crazy tree-huggers are at it again" :ermm:


I don’t think “the sky is falling”, but I have a bad, bad feeling that in 20 years we will universally be saying, "we should have listened to ______ " :whistle:



Ask that proud conservative Dr. Bob Peters what he thinks about this topic the next time you talk to him . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read the book " State of Fear" by Michael Crichton. He exposes the environmental lobby for what it really is.....a grab for money and power. He also has an excellent bibliography following his story that further exposes the lies of the environmental movement. It is an eye opener (and a great story, too. )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A "fair and balanced" book, I'm sure . . . :whistle:


None of us really have the answer ... my point is that people are drawing conclusions on this issue based on their political agenda.


It's not a political issue, in my opinion, but one that should at least be investigated before it is cast off ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by cheaptrick77

my point is that people are drawing conclusions on this issue based on their political agenda.


His point also. Except he gave evidence in his bibliography that exposed the lies that are passed off as gospel by the environmental movement. He also gave the readers access to scientists who have been suppressed by the "mainstream" scientific community because their findings show the lies and inaccuracies that are being touted as absolute truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you see the actual evidence that is offered, you too will see the environmentalists as going around like chicken little yelling the sky is falling. However, their intent is to gain power and wealth, not to actually warn anyone about anything. I have seen enough evidence to feel safe in my belief that what global warming that is actually going on is a natural cycle and there is nothing we can do to make it worse OR to prevent it from occuring. Just one example is how the scientific journals all pontificate about the melting glaciers in Greenland, however, they omit the fact that the glaciers in Greenland have been in a melting phase for the past 6000 years. Just little facts like that manipulated by them causes fear among the sheep and brings the money flowing in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Sideliner

I guess you would have us believe that the billions of tons of pollution the plants in this country produce every day has nothing to do with the climate at all. Yea right...I have some swampland i will sell you. OOPS! It is all dryed up now. Maybe I can still sell you some sand...lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Sideliner

I guess you would have us believe that the billions of tons of pollution the plants in this country produce every day has nothing to do with the climate at all. Yea right...I have some swampland i will sell you. OOPS! It is all dryed up now. Maybe I can still sell you some sand...lol

The Mount St. Helens eruption spewed more "pollution" into the atmosphere than all the man-made pollution produced in the past 200 years! :whistle:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by KirtFalcon
Originally posted by Sideliner

I guess you would have us believe that the billions of tons of pollution the plants in this country produce every day has nothing to do with the climate at all. Yea right...I have some swampland i will sell you. OOPS! It is all dryed up now. Maybe I can still sell you some sand...lol

The Mount St. Helens eruption spewed more "pollution" into the atmosphere than all the man-made pollution produced in the past 200 years! :whistle:




All that means to them is that Mother Nature must be a Republican.:w00t:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember something one of you facists told me once. You told me that we should not protect the enviroment if it impedes on the economy. This has to be one of the most absurd things I have ever heard. In the long run, it is going to hurt the economy if we do not protect the enviroment. But most of you aren't capable of open-mindedness, you instead get your stuff from Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that in the past legislation has been passed that put into place measures to reduce emissions from oil refineries by less than 1%.... and they cost the company over $5 million just for the equipment.... they then had to shut down to install it... pay to install it... and it reduced their production by 5%....


And thus... no new refineries.... existing refineries closed... and yes... the cost of gas went up....


Now the same media and libs that pushed for the measures... are saying that Bush made gas prices go up....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Feeling warmer?



Posted: April 13, 2006

1:00 a.m. Eastern




By Joseph Farah





© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com


As the weather heats this spring, you are sure to hear more from Al Gore and the global-warming zealots.


It's inevitable.


It's predictable.


It's like clockwork.


These hysteria mongers know better than preach doom and gloom about a warmer planet when most people are bundling up against the cold.


But, any day now, mark my words, Al Gore will hold a press conference exhorting us all to change our evil industrial ways.


Thank goodness at least one scientist has done his homework on this issue, demonstrating oh, so clearly, that all this global-warming rhetoric is just so much hot air.



I'm talking about Bob Carter. In case you missed his excellent piece in the London Telegraph earlier this week, it's worth reviewing the key point – global temperatures have not increased at all in the last eight years.


Did you hear what I said?


With all the talk about global warming being the result of industrialization and urbanization, the last eight years have been free of any evidence of that whatsoever.


What would Al Gore have to say about this?


Obviously, his answer would be that one eight-year period is much too short to form any judgments about a long-term global warming trend. And he'd be right. Except that he and his hysterical colleagues and fellow activists don't follow that logic themselves. In fact, they base their own dire global-warming fantasies about one 28-year period of warming between 1970 and 1998.


Why is that period so meaningful and the latter period irrelevant?


And further, Carter asks, why is another period of warming, between 1918 and 1940, dismissed as not significant by the same activists?


They don't like to point to that period as evidence of industrialization's impact on the climate because it occurred prior to the biggest phase of industrialization in the world that began just as that trend was ending.


Carter, by the way, is a geologist at James Cook University with a specialty in paleoclimate research.


Why does he see things so differently than many of his colleagues in academia?


It could be because he, unlike so many of them, is not vying for government grants to continue his work. That's the dirty little secret of this global-warming scam – that you have to follow the money trail to understand what's driving the pseudo-science. Government, of course, has a vested interest in control of the population. Government thrives on crises – both real and manufactured. Government seizes power when priorities are reordered on the basis of "emergencies." And government money is fueling the global-warming frenzy.


But just remember what Professor Bob Carter told us this spring. Keep it in mind as the weather gets warmer. Because you are sure to begin hearing more from the Al "Chicken Little" Gores, again, shortly.


Not only was there no increase in temperature measured globally over the last eight years, there was actually a slight decrease measured – though nothing of consequence.


And that's just the point.


The global-warming lobby is trying to turn the world upside down on the basis of trumped-up evidence, which amounts to no real evidence at all.


These are facts you are not likely to read in the "official" press. These are not facts you will see reported in "the newspaper of record," the New York Times. You are not likely to hear any of this reported by the three major networks – the ones I call "CBS, ABS or NBS."


Now we can say it definitively – there is no global warming.


Even if temperatures rise this year or next year, they have not risen since 1998.


The hoax is over.


The scam is finished.


The shakedown is off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The End Is Not Near




By Tim Worstall : BIO| 11 Apr 2006





There's good news, more good news and then, unfortunately, some bad news, on the subject of climate change. What would you like first? Right, the good news it is then.



In all of the arguments about climate change the two questions that have always loomed largest for me are: how much of it is there likely to be? and what are we going to do about it? If it all ends up being 0.1 degrees Celsius in a century then obviously we don't do much about it and if it's going to be 10 degrees Celsius next week then we'd better get a move on.



The Kyoto Protocol was never going to be one of the things I thought we should do as it does not very much at great expense. I'm also on record here as stating that I think technology will save us, for my day job involves some contact with certain parts of the alternative energy research world and things are moving a great deal faster than the wider world seems to recognize.



Having said that (revealing my prejudices as it were) the question of how much change we're likely to see is obviously the most important. We have a number of different estimates, using different methods, and some of them push some very scary numbers indeed. I don't mean just the usual alarmists (those who say we should all be dead already from the pesticides in our baby milk, we've already drowned from the ice caps melting and so on) but even some of the more sober scientific studies say that they can't rule out 6-degree C rises, higher even. Which is why this paper is so cheering. It looks like we can rule out runaway warming purely as a result of CO2 emissions. For an easier to understand explanation try this at the blog of one of the authors.



We have a number of different ways of trying to work out the "climate sensitivity," that is, what sort of temperature change would we expect to see from a doubling of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere? The International Panel on Climate Change (the UN's offshoot looking into all of this on our behalf) has in the past given a range of 1.5-4.5 degrees C. Various other methods have also been used and these are the ones that don't rule out those very large changes that the alarmists tell us about in the newspapers all the time. Which leads to the interesting thing noted in the new paper:



We made the rather elementary observation that these above estimates are based on essentially independent observational evidence, and therefore can (indeed must) be combined by Bayes' Theorem to generate an overall estimate of climate sensitivity.



So instead of wondering which of our estimates might be correct we look at all of them and come to the correct answer. This pretty much rules out the extreme outcomes and gives us, as they say, a climate sensitivity of 3 degrees C. There's still a range there but the researchers are quite clear about the fact that they didn't think that the scientific community is ready for such a low number to be announced. All of which is of course extremely good news. Even if everything else said about climate change is true, if every Friends of the Earth pamphlet is spot on in every detail, we're still not going to have runaway global warming as a result of CO2 emissions.



Excellent, the second piece of good news also shows that estimates of how much of a rise in CO2 emissions we are going to see are also too high. Ian Castles and David Henderson made the point (explained here at TCS in 2004) that there was something decidedly odd about the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES). This is the series of economic models that tries to look at how the world is going to develop over the next century and then give the tonnages of CO2, methane and so on that will be pumped out into the atmosphere. There were several substantial criticisms (the way the use of regional growth figures would have made North Korea richer than the US in 2100 was a particular delight) but perhaps the most important was the one about the use of exchange rates.



It's well known that if you use market exchange rates to compare relative levels of wealth between rich and poor countries that you'll end up overstating the differences. Things made locally and consumed locally (so called non-traded goods) will be cheaper in the poor countries for, it being a poor place, people get paid less, amongst other factors. So when we try to make such international comparisons we are supposed to use Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) exchange rates (which take account of these differences in prices) so that we measure the true gap in wealth correctly. This shouldn't have made much difference to the SRES except for the fact that most of the models assumed "convergence". That is, that most of the poor countries would end up becoming not just less poor in absolute terms but also less poor in relative terms. Well, if you measure that poverty in the first place using market exchange rates (which the SRES did) then obviously you will overstate the amount of growth that will happen to get to that convergence. That's part of the Castles/Henderson case, that the SRES assumes too much growth in the economy over the next century. This, of course, means that they're overstating the increase in emissions that the scientists then plug into their climate models.



Many were not all that taken with this argument, amongst them the Australian economist John Quiggin, and he's continued to work away at the problem, including making submissions to The Stern Review (the UK Government's look at the economics of climate change). In the course of this he's received a paper (not peer reviewed, this is a working paper) from a colleague, a W. Erwin Diewert, which tells us that there is indeed substance to the Castles/Henderson critique. Not quite as much as was originally claimed (but then they've already dialed back from their very large first claims) but large enough for this to be the conclusion:



What conclusions can we draw from the above algebra? It seems possible to draw the following tentative conclusions:


Castles and Henderson are right to criticize the first part of the SRES modeling strategy, which relies on market exchange rates to calculate per capita real income differences between countries. It would be much better to use ICP PPP's for this first part of the SRES modeling strategy. The differences between PPP's and market exchange rates can be very large so their criticism is not a negligible one.

Quiggin is right to implicitly criticize the entire SRES modeling strategy. It would be simpler to abandon the two stage modeling strategy and make direct comparisons of energy intensities across countries and assume energy convergence rather than real income convergence.

Either way, the SRES model should be reestimated.



Now I'll have to take what these four gentlemen, Castles, Henderson, Diewert and Quiggin tell me is their conclusion slightly on trust. But they do all agree, that the end result of their collective two-year ponder over this question is that the SRES is using the wrong numbers and or methods and that the calculations need to be done again. There are differences about how much they think things will change if these sums are done again but they are (like the good academics they are) telling the IPCC that it needs to do its homework over.



But don't you think that's two pieces of good news? That climate sensitivity is less than previously thought and also that the models everyone's been using for the past five years over-estimate (to a still argued over degree) the likely emissions over the next century?



Want the bad news? The IPCC isn't going to take any notice:



In 2001 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published a set of scenarios in the Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES). These scenarios have been developed in a four year process with many scientists involved in the writing and the review process. The SRES scenarios played an important role in the Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the IPCC and will be used in the upcoming Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). The 21st IPCC plenary session (November 2003) decided that no new baseline scenario would be prepared for the AR4, in view of the time it takes before new scenarios are taken up by the research community and used in publications.



AR4 is to be published in 2007. AR5, the fifth assessment report is presumably due in 2013 or thereabouts and that's the first time that the SRES models will be looked at again. Now I don't know about you but I don't think that's all that acceptable. We are (depending upon which side of the argument you are on) either facing the greatest threat to the health of the planet or we're about to spend trillions upon trillions of dollars on fixing something that doesn't actually need fixing.



Don't you think having a few guys cranking through some spreadsheets to find out which might be a good idea? Soonish?



The author is a TCS contributing writer living in Europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The movie should be titled " The same old tired lies." Kilimanjaro's glaciers have been melting since the early 1800's. Some quotes from scientific journals:


Betsy Mason, "African Ice Under Wraps, " NATURE, 24, November 2003 "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountains foothills is the most likely culprit."


Kaser, et al., " Modern glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro as evidence of climate change: Observations and facts, " INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATOLOGY 24: (2004): 329-339. " In recent years, Kilimanjaro and its vanishing glaciers have become an 'icon' of global warming...[but] processes other than air temperature control the ice recession....A drastic drop in atmospheric moisture at the end of the 19th century and the ensuing drier climate conditions are likely forcing glacier retreats. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Colligula

Heres a trailer for an upcoming movie about global warming. It has alot of liberal bias photographic evidence. It is a little cheesy dramatic, but it has the kinds of images that arent being shown to the general public throught the mainstream news media. (notice killamanjaro)


An Inconvenient Truth


America s@cks! Bush is a liar and terrorist! Conservatives innately hate any person who isn't white and Christian! The world is about to end!!


Nothing but positive, uplifting sentiments from demopsychos... ALWAYS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.



Wall Street Journal Editorial Page

Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT


There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?


The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.


But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.


To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.


If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.


So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.


All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.


Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.


And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.


Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.


M. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...